User talk:Just Step Sideways/Archive 26

3362:

encountered the scene and Chief Superintenden Danny Elcoby of the acre police department who made a media appearnece following the incident explaining how things went down once he arrived at the scene (an apearence in can link to) and many other residents that agreed to be interviewed to the news that day, but all of the eyewitness accounts put togeather would still not have the value attributed to them if not for the actual physical remains left at the scene and the unusual conclusions of the two major studies conducted on them. reliable sources can indeed be provided and linked to the article if it was restored, i had recived a message from some editor telling me the article was nominated for deletion three days before, a warning i did not pick up on because as you may have noticed, im completley new to wikipedia editing and decided to get in to this to create the article about the ahihud event, which was in my opinion, quite supprisingly absent from the site (at least in hebrew, considering english mentions of the incident are quite few on the internet, and the fact that it is known in israel, as it occured in the countrys relativly recent history), so if you restore the page i will change the written information to include names of people involved to make it less obscure and change the phrasing to make it more straight forward but skeptic nonetheless. links to the few media mentions of the incident where the same information that was discussed and debated over in media forums by individuals involved can also be provided, along with links to the original documents leaked from the study conudcted on the remains by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine which was the second study to conclude that the findings cannot be the result of a hoax.

2814:

and non-admins) and they could come to a consensus on whether a moratorium would be useful. The community has the authority to do this and AN is a central noticeboard, not an admin only area. To suggest a RfC, which would be along the lines of "well, we have this RfC over here where we can't get consensus, so I'd like to have a 30-day discussion (usually longer) to see if we shouldn't move these articles until we get a community consensus on the issue", is pretty ridiculous. Surely it's common sense, but try telling that to those involved. As for AN3, of course no one has technically edit warred (these are all experienced and intelligent editors), and a report there would just end in walls of text with no result. In addition, these editors just need a clear cut warning along the lines of "do this and you will be blocked, whatever your justification", something un-wikilawyerable, and they will stop. I'm WP:INVOLVED and unable to make these calls (plus, as you've noted at AN, it's not really something a single admin should be doing), and of course no uninvolved admins want to wade into the mess (can't blame them). Can you please repoen the AN discussion? P.S. – been meaning to say this for a while, but I thought your close of the Ivory Coast RM was excellent and tough break about the RfB. Cheers,

470:(that I don happen to agree with one bit) that if a living person makes it clear that they do not want us publishing their birthdate we do not do so, even if the whole world already knows. The specific case I am familiar with involved a British talk radio host who had an on-air birthday party every year. He happens to also hate Knowledge so he used this policy to get his name removed just to fuck with us and unfortunately we let him get away with it. They have to prove they really are that person though, usually be emailing OTRS. Publishing their real name is a whole other affair. As it happens I have closed some discussions dealing with this exact issue. some folks were trying to expand the policy I mentioned to include real names of people who use stage names withpout first getting a consensus from the community that this was an appropriate interpretation of the policy. There is no policy that says we can't publish their real name if we get it from a reliable source, which ADN certainly is. Actually after taking another look it says in the cases of persons of marginal notability you can publish the year but not he exact date. 404:

like an experienced Knowledge editor, as opposed to the usual sort of clueless newbie edits you normally come to expect from IP users. Perhaps not coincidentally, these edits will result in large portions of the article in question being gutted, or the tone or context of the article will suddenly take a drastic turn. The actual question is this: would an editor have to go to probably more trouble than it's worth to document these changes in order for there to be a sockpuppet investigation, or is this the sort of thing that any admins are paying attention to? I have a lot of articles on my watchlist that I suspect few other editors watch, and therefore they appear to be easy targets for this sort of thing. I see that there is a sockpuppet noticeboard, but I don't know if I want to take on more tasks which may achieve only negligible results. I already have enough on my plate on here, not to mention the real world. Anyway, let me know.

2702:

the article or to remove the controversy section entirely. I'd originally added it because the controversy had gotten some coverage and it resulted in the changing of several of the rules on the site as far as reviews go. I'd like to keep it in there in as neutral a fashion as possible, but if it's going to just cause drama then I'd just as soon not have it at all. In any case, the current article revision lacks reliable sources and looks to be biased towards the side of the side of the sites that are against the negative reviewers. I don't really have an opinion either way, but I would like it to be more neutral than what it currently is like. Could you compare the two versions and make a decision as to whether it should be changed to my version or otherwise deleted? The current article state is atrocious.

2889:

the community wants from crats I probably would not be a good one. I thought they wanted competence and a record of good judgement. Mu mistake. They want competence and no judgement, good or bad. What amused me is that I said right out that I would not answer what has long been the stupidest part of RFB: being asked to re-examine 10-15 old RFAs and say what you wpuld have done. A few people were really bothered by that, but then when 28bytes ran right after me, nobody tried that with him either. I basically count that as a win, we got a new crat and they weren't subjected to the usual hazing. Ok, you caught me just after getting up and clearly I am feeling a nit refelctive this morning and have now posted my own wall-o-text. Coffee time.

7067:) This situation really shook me. I had been unaware that my articles had left too much source material I was "caught" from two incidents which had the best of intentions. (Another editor nominating an article which I authored for a DIY. And the other copyvio occurred when I attempted to re-write an article which had an over the top promotional tone and zero inline citations.) After what happened it may be best for me to stay away completely for a while. Furthermore, I understand that a self-requested block will not prevent any editor or admin from initiating a formal CCI or other action should the content of my past contributions so warrant. I also understand that the block will remain in the blocklog. 6402:- Give the RFComments some time? Not sure. The RFC as I pointed out is not needed I already agree when they actually showed me a source that agreed with their position. Then I was reported to AN/EW for expecting them to talk on the talk page and expecting a verifiable source not one that implied. There is no reason for this RFC. It is because I seem to have entered a Twilight Zone of no one capable of understanding that the argument is over ... done ... Hence the caps and the request for closure. When I already agree with them and I point that out and then they continue edit warring and RFComments for no reason? Why in the world doesn't any one understand me? I am using English. 5452:] "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad. This new entity consisted of the former Iranian Khanates of Arrān, including Karabagh, Baku, Shirvan, Ganja, Talysh (Ṭāleš), Derbent (Darband), Kuba, and Nakhichevan (Naḵjavān), which had been annexed to Russia by the treaties of Golestān (1813) and Torkamānčāy (1828) under the rubric of Eastern Transcaucasia.".. 803:

fit to redirect his talk page to his userpage, making it more or less impossible to talk to him. It's a shame really, I don't think he is such a bad guy, but ever since the incident you mention he has displayed a very hostile attitude towards anyone who makes the slightest remark to him that he doesn't like, and it is clear that he has been deliberately making it difficult to communicate with him. That is pretty much the opposite of what is expected of any good-faith user. Hopefully the block will serve to reinforce this point as he will have to communicate if he wants to have it lifted, and will have to do so in a less hostile fashion than has been his habbit lately.

6536:

well so I retracted it, and someone deleted my improvement, to leave the joke there. What's up with that? The joke was not appropriate and could have been deleted on sight by anyone, and especially by the editor who made the joke. The decision to delete content from a talk page for inappropriateness is sometimes easy, and like every decision, is sometimes less obvious. If someone says " " (insert your favorite expression) on a talk page, it is disruptive to the discussion. Would you delete it and warn the editor, comment on it there and not warn the editor, or ignore it? And if the offended editor deleted it and someone else put it back?

7083:

do have problems with close paraphrasing; I found a few ways to deal with it: use multiple sources and mix up citations so that order of what I use is different from that in the source, take notes, rest for a while and write up stuff afterward so that the original phraseology is no longer at the top of my mind, and, arbitrarily reparaphrase everything after it is written. This last will help if there was close paraphrasing earlier and won't hurt even if there wasn't. If you continue editing without paraphrasing problems, over time, this issue, unlike vandalism, blocks, personal attacks, incivility and the like, will be put to rest.

3313:

incomplete (a fact which was mentioned the end) and lacked important material and sources that would add to its validity a great deal. (photographs of the original documents issued by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine with the study conclusions written by professor Yehuda Hiss, chief pathologist and head of the National Institute of Forensic Medicine at abu kabir as of 1988-present, proving beyond any doubt that the findings from ahihud could not have been the result of a hoax, along with sources to the information featured in the article and links to media coverage of the incident.)

5415:“ called in Middle Persian Āturpātākān, older new-Persian Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲agān, Ād̲h̲arbāyagān, at present Āzarbāyd̲j̲ān, Greek ᾿Ατροπατήνη, Byzantine Greek ᾿Αδραβιγάνων, Armenian Atrapatakan, Syriac Ad̲h̲orbāyg̲h̲ān. The province was called after the general Atropates (“protected by fire”), who at the time of Alexander's invasion proclaimed his independence (328 B.C.) and thus preserved his kingdom (Media Minor, Strabo, xi, 13, 1) in the north-western corner of later Persia (cf. Ibn al-Muḳaffaʿ, in Yāḳūt, i, 172, and al-Maḳdisī, 375: Ād̲h̲arbād̲h̲ b. Bīwarasf) 5564:

policy that we should not have such an article. This is a very common scenario that happens dozens of times every single day. As an administrator who closed the debate it was my responsibility to delete not only the article itself but all pages dependent on it. This included a rather wide array of talk pages and archives whose names did not match with the article. Somehow in that confusing mess I missed the "history of the Name of Azerbaijan" redirect page until you posted here indicating you had turned it back from a redirect into an article.

5070:(Last 2 title). And I write everything long and polite way. Can you please spend 5 minute to read my writing and the reaction that user give. Here is wikipedia and we are need to edit things with reliable sources and but i didn't know that some people have chance to choose whats going to write in article and whats not. And can you also help me about figure out how other users will talk and find a middle way with this user who trying to use wikipedia with their turkish nationalist purposes? Thank you for your time and kind regards ( 4510: 435:), yet it's a BLP violation or crime against humanity to repeat that information on Knowledge? Whether or not it was Whitekeys himself who vandalized the article, one thing is for certain: the person is savvy enough about the Internet to realize the difference between that information being buried in the lifestyle section of a Sunday newspaper, and being featured front and center in a Knowledge article. Judging from his recent activities, an update would be helpful. There is also the issue of his departure from 7528: 3944: 3570: 1058: 6095: 3167: 7685: 7318: 5698: 4794: 4075: 4038: 2945: 2914: 8631: 31: 4428:

a discussion on the RM. (In fact I only added an RfC tag to the discussion I had already opened and nobody had joined by then.) Anyway, after this we will only discuss the RM and at the end of the discussion wait for an admin to close it, in favour or against. Nobody is making a move without consensus. (When I tried to move the article there was no visible controversy -no discussion on the TP- so I never thought doing something arbitrary. Could I make myself clear? All the best. --

4619: 875: 5645:"Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30 “ In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent". 6231:

protection, the edit warring had to stop. I don't see any urgent need to implement anything. As I have tried to make clear at the talk page if edit warring resumes after the protection expires or is lifted the option of blocking instead is very much on the table. However I won't be around to babysit this situation all day today so if there is a solid consensus on the talk page regarding how to proceed feel free to file a request for unprotection at

2497: 6709:). Black60dragon's arguments amounted to little more than "keep because I wrote it" and "keep because this is Knowledge". 1 weak keep vote was based on the release having charted, which in and of itself does not merit it having a stand-alone article since the chart position is already mentioned in the discography article and there is no other significant secondary source coverage to be found. The other weak keep vote amounted to "sources 4226:. His column this week ended with the lament that Alaska is pretty far behind other places in biographical coverage of its people. I talk to a lot of like-minded people on subjects like these, and the attitude is that everyone is waiting around for a grant or a book deal. The ones who have made their living on the sort of thing that you and I and others have done on Knowledge for free pretty much loathe Knowledge for that very reason. 5742: 5794:"A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 21:45, 25 December 2010 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) deleted page Dirty Filthy Mugs (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Dirty filthy mugs)" 6870:

The article is redirected, but the content remains in the history just waiting for someone to un-redirect it without addressing the reasons it was redirected in the first place. Interested editors (like myself) have to keep such pages on their watchlist for years just to keep reverting every time this happens. A true "redirect" verdict would involve deleting the content, then re-creating the title as a redirect only. --

7883: 2242: 7269: 7177: 5938: 4187: 2538: 213: 4017:. And FWIW, on a slightly different note regarding NPP, although I am not entirely in favour of creating a right for NPP, I fear that the question may become inevitable when the NewPagesFeed is finally released for general use and has been monitored for a while. The reviewer right (whatever that will be) could be a possible guideline, and might incorporate both if need arises. 6211:

sense to me to reward that. It's not a question of who is right or wrong content-wise, but who is right or wrong in terms of the process. What we have been trying to do here is follow process, despite Noetica's attempts to derail it, and I would very much appreciate admin support for that position, because respecting process during disputes is the only thing that is sustainable.

7632: 5558:. I was helping out clearing the backlog there and clicked on this AFD. Why I closed it the way I did is explained at the debate itself. please be aware that AFD, and all other content discussions on Knowledge, are just that, discussions, not votes. I know they kind of look like votes the way they are formatted but sheer numbers do not mean an automatic "win" for a position. 4844:

move. You appear to know much better than I what's going on here, so if you think the block was a mistake, please feel free to adjust in whatever way you think best. (FWIW, my thinking is that I don't mean "indefinite" as in "infinite", but "indefinite" as in, "need to convince an admin you'll knock it off"; that's why it wasn't an escalating 2-day or 1-week block) --

6055:. My only edits to the structure of the RFC thread on the talk page have been two hattings, both not undone by anybody. I have never reverted anything else, endorsed any particular state of that thread and its closure, and never reverted such state or edit summaries in there. I have no idea why two editors are using my name to continue an edit war on the talk thread. 5607:

miss it? The issue is that there was a lot of keep votes, and this issue was mentioned. No offense to you, but it seems without careful consideration (no offense to you), you deleted the page. Of course, if I was in your position, and did not the history of the whole article and probably hundreds of edits that went into it, I would have done the same.

1127:

group, but I didn't want to sign you guys up for extra work if you didn't want it. I suppose it could just as easily be a 'crat function or an entirely separate user right (or even just bundled into the standard admin package), but it seemed like a more natural fit for the oversighters since that involves a different type of "super-deletion". Thoughts?

3770: 1259:, but I was still prevented from deleting it. My bot typically makes around 150 edits per day to its monthly log page; I can, of course, add some code to my bot to work around that, by spreading the edits to different log pages, but that's somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether enwiki should be self-sufficient regarding deletions. 6736:

deserve stand-alone articles simply because they are by Green Day. Again, that's a situation specifically addressed by NALBUMS, a guideline that has widespread community consensus. If you're set in your "no consensus" reading of the argument, there's little I can do. I might take it to DRV, or AfD it again sometime down the line. --

439:, which is another can of worms. The whitewashing of details concerning Schurz Communications taking over the station and replacing a number of the station's longtime staff and management, also "due to BLP concerns," seems suspicious to me because it's too coincidental with the current article reading like a commercial for Schurz. 5570:

the rest of the pages. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of what was on those pages or the substance of the arguments made there. As you correctly assumed I did not read them, nor was I required to in any way. This was purely an administrative action and part of the process of being thorough when closing a debate.

4875:

Kaz is solely to blame; there appears to be at least one other very wordy very battelground-y person there (I stopped looking after that). And now Seb seems to be implying they're not even agreed on the subject of the article? Unwatchlisting seems a very good idea, and think I shall be a coward and do so right now. Cheers. --

7102:

Whenever anyone asks for one of these I usually ask them to wait 24 hours and to consider again if they are really sure they agree to my standard terms for making such a block, and that they really think it is the only way to resolve whatever issue it is that is compelling to ask for this. Let me know if that is still the case.

6563:

DR process and borther...ANI seems useless in the DR process. I am not joking. In fact, it makes things worse a good deal of the time. If ANI is not a part of the DR process and admin are not the civility police, admin should NOT be able to block anyone for any reason. Stick to the mob an bucket and stop playing authority.--

4919:

and edit war. Maybe calling his place of work was a little overboard, but when the user continuously vandalized a page, time and time and time again, after warnings not to, after warnings from 2 admins to stop editing, reverting to 2007 information, I felt it was the only way to stop the user. The page is deleted and I am

5495:

page was there to expand the article again. The working page was there to expand the article, which is not something that you considered. The working page had 100s of lines.. So I ask you to repeal the decision based on the fact that material from the working page will be put in the article (when users agree). Thanks--

633:

someone who has worked on it (and I think education articles need more attention anyway) I'd like to avoid and edit war. I'm hesistant to work on it, as there has been reverting by these people to anyone they see as biased. Not sure what you can do but since you are an admin I thought it best to get perspective here.

7218:, while I think the consensus at the AFD was clearly for a merge and redirect, I don't think the way you have done the merge and redirect makes sense. I also don't think it was what was intended by the participants in the AFD, and thus doesn't represent the consensus of the discussion. The way you have left the 7223:

non-encyclopedic. I also don't think any of the people voting for a merge in the AFD were desiring a final article that doesn't even give (for example) the main character's last name. Would you object to me trying to merge significantly more content from the redirected article into the target article?

6869:

of the article should be deleted to avoid re-creation. Otherwise there is nothing to stop any stubborn editor (like Black60dragon) from simply clicking 'undo' once it's redirected (as already happened, which is why it arrived at AfD in the first place). Too often "redirect" closes are only half-done:

6688:

I am not suggesting that it be determined by vote counting, but by the weight of the arguments. All 5 delete votes expressed or agreed that the topic has not received sufficient secondary source coverage to warrant an article. This is an argument based in Knowledge's policies and guidelines, embodied

6254:

because that was the consensus of the RfC and I believe we should implement consensus, especially at the conclusion of a consensus determining process and because it is best, always, to do things sooner rather than later. Since there has been plenty of drama already, and I have no desire to add admin

5648:

Rouben Galichian , "Historic Maps of Armenia: The Cartographic Heritage",I. B. Tauris (July 23, 2004)(pg 9-10:"In accounts and maps produced prior to 1918, the region of Iran called Azerbaijan or Aderbaijan(also known as Atropatene, which is the old version of Azerbaijan) has always been to the south

5563:

So, we have established that there was a week-long open discussion of whether or not Knowledge should have an article on the subject of the name of Azerbaijan, and that in my capacity as an administrator I determined that a consensus existed amongst those users whose arguments were based on Knowledge

5418:

4918:

I can assure you, I am not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked. I actually would work with him if he would follow the rules and policies of Knowledge, lose the cocky attitude of his that he knows more than everyone else and tries to be on the same page as everyone and not jump the gun

4859:

I had been thinking for some time that it was just a matter of time until something like this happened. Neither of you is as quick to block as I am, if I hadn't unwatched the whole affair a few days ago I probably would have done the same thing. It's been exasperating. The talk page is an awful mess

4843:

After seeing an ANI thread that Kaz had moved this page in spite of the ongoing move request, and in a way designed to prevent moving it back, and after seeing that he is continuing to screw with the formatting of the talk page, I have blocked Kaz indefinitely, and Drmies and I have reverted the page

4427:

I read that you took the page under protection, as I understand, against non-consensus moves. Lately I have been the only user who wanted to move that page to: Cebiche. It was not possible manually so I asked admin help. Than I saw that there are several users who opposed a possible move. So I opened

3394:

Oh I got you, well if that's all i need then here is the news report brodcasted at that day in december of 94 about the incident, the lady who speakes first is mrs Ziona damti who first discoverd the findings and the man with the jacket that speakes after her is the police office that was sent to the

3312:

Because i am currently in touch with people who were involved in the researches conducted on the findings and investigated the event, i was indeed hesitant of adding specific information about the incident without learning from them if the information is accurate or sourced in rumors, the article was

2770:

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a

7934:

article – in fact I don't really care, because it's only on my watchlist due to vandalism. But I don't really like it when the talk page is redirected as well, because I don't see the point of effectively losing those discussions. I may be a bit paranoid, but we could *really* lose these discussions

7826:

If having lists of television channels is important to your job then you need to explain to whoever is in charge of such things that your job should not be dependent on list articles on a free website. I don't know what it is you do but that strikes me as a terribly irresponsible way to do business.

7124:

Thank you Churn and Change and Beeblebrox. A 24-hr wait is certainly reasonable considering that it's hard block and therefore no appeal. I also re-read the terms and understand that any circumvention by creating a sock account will result in an indefinite extension of the block. I thought that I

7082:

If this was unintentional close paraphrasing, I would say you should rather stay for two reasons: by editing more, you will learn how to write without close paraphrasing, something useful outside Knowledge too, and, two, the issue is not ethically as big a deal as you seem to feel. Beginning editors

6735:

I don't think further discussion is going to get us anywhere. Multiple editors made good-faith efforts to locate significant secondary source coverage and came up empty-handed, yet Black60dragon is adamant that this and other minor releases (which also lack any significant secondary source coverage)

6669:

Well first of all we don't close by "mahority rules" so the numbers aren't the only factor to consider. Arguments with a basis in WP policy are more important. On that note, if it is already covered in another article I am confused as to why you nominated for deletion at all as redirecting seems the

6439:

I think this could be a good way to gather input without expecting users to wade through the confusing mess the main RFC is becoming and without all the misunderstandings and so forth we are seeing there now. It'll be a lot of work to go through it all, and still more work to turn those results into

6164:

which Noetica reverted. We held an RfC from September 1 to October 4 to ask whether those words ought to be restored to the MoS. Nathan Johnson (an uninvolved editor) closed it on October 4 as consensus in favour of restoration. Noetica is strongly opposed to those words, and twice reverted Nathan's

5797:

As you can see, it was deleted almost 2 years ago, with the reason they are not popular enough. They currently have 2 studio albums, and 2600 'fans' at their Facebook page. Also if you listen to the 'popular' online radio called sky.fm (poppunk section) you can occasionally hear their songs. I think

5657:

Anyhow, I believe the justification that there is a workingpage is sufficient to restore the old page..these controversial quotes were moved to the working page, since the article had too many quotes (the reason being that users did not agree on these quotes). Which means eventually there is a need

5554:

contributions that you made edits on three of the seven days the article was being discussed, but you did not participate in that discussion. That would have been the appropriate place to make your argument for retaining the article. When a debate has been open for more than a week it gets listed at

5494:

I am not freaking out.. I have been here since 2006..I know the article very well and contributed to it. I was out for a period and the article was shortened to a working page (because of multiple quotes). But you deleted it based on its condensced version and not based on the fact that the working

5422:

Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30 “ In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the

4445:

Nobody is in trouble or anything, the protection is just to stop any future moves from being made without a consensus. It is usually a good idea to check the talk page archives before making a move, in this case it has in fact been discussed before so it cannot be considered an uncontroversial move.

4289:

Why does Toddy1 always do something, then when I copy him he points out how wrong my actions were but never points out what he himself has been doing. Classic straw-man attack. I think it best for me to simply continue to reply where Users are talking to me. But I promise, that if Toddy does what he

3304:

The article, despite being incomplete, was obviously not a "blatant prank" and only perceived as such because of its unusual topic, but if the editor was actually to read the article in its entirety he\she would have noticed the paragraphs featuring and quoting two different studies conducted at two

3268:

of edit warring, not concurrent with it. It is a shame that the other user involved apparently refuses to do so, and is now blocked as they have clearly been at this a while but that does not make it ok to keep reverting them. There is no "right side" in an edit war, anyone who particpates is wrong.

2888:

IAR all the time, we've just learned not to say so because it makes people go crazy. Thanks for your condolences on the RFB, but really, being told "you're too decisive we want someone more boring" is about the nicest rejection I've ever gotten. I obviously had not realized it, but if boring is what

2701:

Hi! I noticed you put an edit block on the Goodreads article because it was turning into a revision war, and I'm glad you noticed it so soon. I was actually just looking for the process of reporting a revision war. I just wanted to ask if it's possible for you to either revert to my previous copy of

2649:

Hi Beeblebrox, I wasn't aware that there was already a discussion going on at AN, must have missed that one completely. Would you mind me merging the thread you closed at ANI into the AN discussion? The 1RR proposal would have to get admin approval anyway so why not have a subsection at the relevant

569:

Please, can you look at the unblock request one more time. It's not about the message you think. I explained everything the best way I can at my talk page. When I was explaining the whole thing there was a misudnerstanding that someone removed some message in order to hide it from me. It's not that.

456:

On the SPI thing, unless you can point to a pupeteer and not just a suscpiscion based on an IP knows too much I don't think you will get very far. There are actually some pretty long term IP users around these days. A better approach might be to open a discussion on the talk page and try to get more

403:

Anyway, I had a concern for quite some time, and I was looking for an individual admin's opinion before I took this question further. I see something come across my watchlist a little too often for my comfort. Namely, an article will see an edit or series of edits by an IP, but one which acts just

6562:

Please direct me to a link that states this about ANI. Not just because I think you are incorrect and are just not willing to do a block over user conduct until it has exploded out of control, and then ask why nobody notified you, but because I will need to know where to send editors as part of the

5569:

The discussion that I closed was to determine whether Knowledge should have an ar title on the subject of the name of Azerbaijan. When you editied the redirect to make it into the same article I really had no choice but to delete it, which I actually should have done two hours earlier when deleting

5371:

Well that is because you did not read all the past history of the article and did not read the work page of that article.. Now you deleted the work page of the article..Can you restore the workpage of that article? No.. so all the debates and ideas that went from 2006..was deleted by yourself! No

4874:

I'd hate to waste anyone's time, since there appears to have been a lot of discussion there, but yeah, I wonder if the whole thing shouldn't be archived, and start over clean. I mean, I'm not an idiot, but I cannot figure out what is going on on that talk page. I'm not really even clear on whether

4684:

Our software technology is covered by multiple patents. The software dramatically changes the manner in which complex data integrations take place resulting in significant dollar savings for users. The size of a company (44 people) does not denote significance in any way. What a user can accomplish

4677:

We see that you have deleted Stone Bond Technologies from Knowledge with input that the company/product is not significant. Since we are new at the Wiki environment there may have been some missteps in some of our links but this is no reason for deletion. In fact, this seems to be a rather targeted

4233:

I previously referred to mentions that Wasilla was (at the time) well-known as the home of Gerrit "Heinie" Snider, a highly notable person from Wasilla who had the misfortune of being somewhat lost to modern history. I wonder if it's worth mentioning elsewhere or if people would wind up scratching

3677:

I haven't been to Chena Hot Springs in a long, long time, apart from accompanying Japanese tour groups. Basically, issues with the folks who currently run it. I always preferred Circle Hot Springs, but it's been closed for probably a decade now. There's also Melozi Hot Springs, but that's out of

2883:

Oh, the Ivory Coast move. For me that served as a big reminder to keep it short and sweet when trying to explain a close. If you give too many details, people will jump all over them and look for the most sinister interpretation of them they can. It was funny actually, I was at a talk at Wikimania,

1232:

You should have archived your bot's log page anyway before the 5000th edit. Any deletion of a longer history can harm the servers, and who knows if that'll be neccessary on your page once too? For this very issue we on German Knowledge have a bot that notifies our sysops on ANI about long histories

1195:

oversighters would make sense.Crats could handle any normal requests for it based pn a deletion discussion or other consensus based process, and OSers could use it in the rare event that such a page would need to be deleted for privacy or defamation concerns. In those cases we would want to be able

1149:

While I suppose I wouldn't oppose this, it doesn't make all that much sense to me to roll it into oversight. I've never once, in the almost-year I've been an oversighter, had any call to do a bigdelete (or, really, a delete of anything bigger than about 100 revisions). That's not to say it couldn't

948:

I believe he was blocked for refusing to communicate. He repeatedly took measures to make it difficult to discuss with him on his talk pages and removed messages when people informed him of it. He placed a retired message on his userpage, continued to edit, and refused to explain why to those who

802:

The reasons for the block have nothing to do with rollback, so there's no problem there. The issue is more to do with his communication, or lack thereof. Several threads regarding this are in the recent history of his talk page. Even after three different admins spoke to him about it he still saw

483:

is too. He actually goes not only all over the state but down to the lower 48 to perform. Some people I know saw him perform at some tourism trade show in Tenessee a few years back. If I'm not mistaken his claim to be "Alaska's Official Baladeer" is not just a marketing gimmick and he really was so

330:

is only half of the problem, and technically the better half, in that at least the name he was putting was the one used in newspapers (not that he was sourcing them, mind you, but at least it was correct). The IP you blocked, however, is the one adding some completely random name, possibly based on

6516:

My point is that you are not helping the situation. You seem bent on getting the other users involved in trouble and you have edited their remarks again and again. Somehow you have failed to notice that your actions are not improving the situation but rather are making it worse. Best practices are

5801:

To make one thing clear, I am in no way judging your ban on the page as it was the right thing to do by your rules and standards. I am only saying enough time has passed and that they are ready for a Knowledge page. Also if it is not a big problem, it would be easier for me to re create and update

5606:

You said: "Somehow in that confusing mess I missed the "history of the Name of Azerbaijan" redirect page until you posted here indicating you had turned it back from a redirect into an article. ". That is the problem I am trying to point out. Other uses mentioned in the AFD page, but how did you

4558:

Aw, c'mon. your nom suggested merging, and when pressed about that all you added was "I think this ought to be deleted". there was a 0% chance that you would convince anyone because you failed to actually present the case for deletion. I would expect more from someone with such an enormous laptop.

3697:

is a five minute walk from one of the few places up there where grayling fishing is legal. Great spot for the canoe and a bottle of wine as it's a stocked pond, I suppose to keep anglers off the Chena until wild stocks there rebound. I'm missing it right now, there is a reason we aren't usually in

3660:

I'm actually rather amazed that I seem to have the ear of local legislators, with the exception of Bob Miller and David Guttenberg. One of those legislators told me that the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce lobbied for a gas pipeline from the North Slope during the mid 1950s, or around the time that

3377:

I don't think you quite understood what I said In my last post. Show me a reliable source, here, on this page, and I will restore the article. Providing the names of supposed witnesses is not going to cut it. Show me the source that says this incident occurred at all. The deletion was not based on

2813:

Hi. Disappointed to see you closed the discussion (request for moratorium) and suggested a RfC. Perhaps my opening statement wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking for a random admin to just declare "moratorium imposed", I was hoping there could be a bit of discussion by some uninvolved parties (admins

2747:

The biggest problem so far is that the other user, although well intentioned, is new and unaware of how notability of persons is established and neutrality. I'd really, really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the conversation between the two of us. I would prefer that we not have to go to

1829:

I merely asked you to honestly ask yourself why you are so fixated on the idea that the content be right on the lead section. Of course I read the entire conversation before performing a close. A close I stand behind 100%. I did not say you were acting in bad faith, but I did say you were having a

1126:

Howdy Beeblebrox. Are you familiar with the 'bigdelete' permission? I've been toying with the idea of proposing moving that permission from a meta-only function (i.e. stewards) to an en-wiki function, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. My thinking was that this should be added to the oversight

1009:

There is a request for an account with the user name Beberox. It does appear to be a fairly common user name out there on the internet. It doesn't have enough similarity for it to automatically have picked your user name as a conflict but it did remind me of you. So i though to ask if you think it

766:

Well it appears to be in regards to the whole double redirect thing. I thought of it as just some odd tangling that resulted from redirecting his main accounts talk to his user page today, but having the original redirected when the account was first made. That is why I had undid it. I can now see

7101:

O tend to agree with what Churn and change is saying. You made a a mistake. It happens. Knowledge can be surprisingly forgiving to anyone who, as you have, acknowledges their errors and learns from them. However, if you feel it is that important to take a break I am willing to consider the block.

6641:

and I debated in circles a lot more than we probably should have, and I may be biased, but I really don't see how you can read the discussion and arrive at no consensus. The !vote count was 5 in favor of deletion (including myself), 1 strong keep (Black60dragon, the creator), and 2 weak keeps. At

6535:

Noted. Actually I am trying to keep them out of trouble. But editing their remarks again and again if they are again and again adding off topic sections is what I would expect every editor to do - but of course not to the point of edit warring. In one place I made a joke and it was not taken very

6210:

Yes, I understand that, but the RfC conclusion ought to be implemented. Your protection has favoured the only person who has edit-warred throughout the entire RfC, including overturning the closure of the RfC multiple times against an uninvolved editor and an uninvolved admin. It doesn't make any

5043:

as changes made with the obvious intent to harm the encyclopedia. It is unhelpful and frankly rude to accuse a person you are in a content dispute with of vandalizing. A more appropriate response is to open a discussion of your reverted changes on the article's talk page. If you can't resolve the

3540:

At glance it looks like they genuinely do not understand that hey are violating copyright by doing that. Unfortunately for them it makes no difference, we can't allow that. I've blocked them and deleted all the images as obvious copyvios. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for them and

1318:

I once had to restore and delete dewiki's sandbox (with more than 90 000 edits) for a police investigation and caused some problems to our servers which have been solved by our sysadmins shortly. So please take this problem serious and if you want to discuss whether highly trusted and technically

5318:

and there is controvery with regards to the application of the name (see section all the way in the end). Consequently, it was agreed long time ago to make this page..which was then shortened to name of Azerbaijan and now removed...There was a working page on the idea which should not have been

8290:

As you note, it isn't a clear-cut thing. But what finally leaned me in this direction was that those who don't want it "live" in the category while they're answering should be able to see the category link fairly clearly when they edit the page, and presumably know how to (temporarily) remove a

5586:

and while there are certainly a lot of contributions in that history I am not seeing any edits by you or any other IP users, and no edits at all since April of this year. That doesn't look to me like an active discussion but if it is needed I could restore it as a subpage of the main Azerbaijan

4766:

This is an ongoing, evolving project and it is entirely possible that some of the other articles you mention should be deleted, it's just that nobody has gotten around to nominating them yet. there is no indication this was a "targeted effort" articles are deleted by the dozens as the result of

4214:

I realized that the same discussions were raging on. After thinking about it, I decided that further contributions on my part would amount to beating a dead horse. I saw the announcements for those research accounts. Unfortunately, I'm back to getting my Internet access primarily through the

3321:

many times, the removal of "The Ahihud incident" is not just unfair but insulting, as the article about the ahihud incident, even at its incomplete state, had much more valid information in it the many other articled related to the subject, and the incident itself despite being debated over for

2833:

the place for settling content disputes. The discussion got very long very fast but the majority of it was the same already involved parties just continuing their argument. The remainder of the remarks were me and one other admin trying to explain that there is no mandate for us to do anything.

632:

article (e.g. correcting the wrong view that LD is diagnosed as a medical condition) but now it is heading towards an edit war. Not sure if it is possible to talk sense into the two editors who claim (and have, as history shows for some time back and forth on this article) that it is biased. As

6213:

I wonder whether you were confusing the reverting on the MoS over a separate issue; there has been recent reverting over hyphens (or similar, I'm not sure), but that is not connected to the RfC. Darkfrog made only one edit to implement the RfC and Noetica reverted him once (this time). So page

3361:

The majority of the information written in the article about the circumstances of the event itself was not sourced in the entities who investigated the event, but was reported by each of the two dozen witnesses who were present in the event including Ziona damti, the female resident that first

411:

after all the vandalism, and everyone throwing up the BLP shield as validating the notion of pushing the article more in the direction of subtle promotion rather than a proper biographical article. That problem doesn't seem to be limited to that article; I see that in any number of biography

6583:

and then came here to somewhat angrily reply to it without reading the rest of it, where I specifically stated, for the second time in that same thread, what other option might be more effective. My point wasn't that it is not permissible to report incivility at ANI, my point was that chronic

6230:

You may notice I have consistently used the term "edit warring" without ever mentioning number of reverts. Between the page itself and the talk page there was edit warring going on and I put a stop to it. As a completely uninvolved admin I couldn't care less which version of the page got the

5575:

This may seem like a very long explanation but you seemed so upset yesterday and to be coming at this from so many angles that I felt it important to be abundantly clear about how I came to delete all these pages and that the bulk of your comments about why this should not have happened are

6830:

Even if no actual content is merged it is still preferable to have a redirect so that those looking for what information we do have on this, even if it only a listing in a discography, can find what they were looking for. I agree, and so does nearly everyone else, that it should not have a

740:

Hi Beeblebrox. Just curious of the sudden blocking of both accounts, one of which I had just given Rollback to as a legitimate alternate account. I am aware of the bit of drama that was stirred up over the whole cabel thing awhile ago, but didn't seem pertinent to wanting to have the right

7222:

article, it is full of details on secondary characters while only having a tiny paragraph about the main characters. I don't see how things like the main characters' names, a breif description of their roles in the story, or which voice actors voiced them in the anime could be considered

5553:

Ok, Let's start with what appears to be to the basic premise of your complaint: that I decided to just go on some sort of spree of deleting pages related to the name of Azerbaijan. What happened is that a user nominated the article for deletion. It was debated for a week. I see from your

5010:

turned article back to old version with saying "Previous edition was better so I reverted". And I was wondering in Knowledge can users decide to choose "better edition" which have nationalist and fictional perspectives and delete versions which "has lots of reliable sources" and objective

114:

in the hopes that I can one day turn it into a coherent essay on the positive and negative aspects of one's individual motivations for doing this. Let's just say that a lot of users tend to validate the criticisms of those who believe that this is just a form of video gaming for autistic

2056:

Please re-lock the CBS Records article as Norton changed it back BEFORE the dispute was settled. I have a compromise solution of creating a new article called "CBS Records International" regarding the international arm of the former CBS Records (now Sony Music) that was founded in 1962.

3669:

and the road to Nome. It's like we're revisiting a bygone era of boosterism. The political mantra over the past decade has been "good jobs." The fact is, there just aren't enough of those good jobs for the population base we have now. I watched a lot of the legislature this year on

5151:

I didn't really want to call out the person by name as they were eventually blocked briefly for their behavior and I consider the matter settled now, but if you look at the history of this page for Sept 30 I think you can piece it together easily enough. The actual dispute occurred at

7736:

I have lost desire to rename this article into "Frasier Crane and Lilith Sternin". Seriously, I have detested the way I have written solely about her because she has no general significance. But I guess it helps readers truly learn about her individually and her sole significance to

7797:

Please restore the following pages: List of Bell TV channels, List of Cogeco Cable Ontario TV Channels, List of Cogeco Cable Quebec TV Channels, List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels, List of Rogers Digital Cable Channels, List of Shaw Direct channels, List of Shaw Exo TV channels,

4320:

I'd appreciate it if you'd reinforce the Wiki Not A Forum on that TP - the page is a mess in many ways, but there is also waaaay too much discussion between some editors about their personal beliefs/experiences instead of discussing Reliable Sources to improve the article. Thanks.

5235:, but you already knew that...anyway, it must be the comparatively low level of activity or my deliberate avoidance of certain topics, but I'm utterly amazed that I've yet to be blocked or banned. Especially given my tendency towards uncivility and bad faith, amongst other things. 8275:

had assumed you had not realized I had deliberately left it off and were just adding it as it is clearly related. That's what I get for making assumptions. I guess it does make it easier and if we get completely blank submissions they can be removed manually. I'll revert myself.

3326:

to be the product of a hoax, not once but twice, once by a government institute and once by a highly regarded research university. because of these reasons i will request the article deletion to be undone as soon as possible, so i may amend it to fit all wikipedia standards.)

5864:(which is not quite the same thing as popularity) to warrant inclusion are not going to be considered sufficient. What is needed is evidence that the group and their work have already been the subject of significant coverage by entities that meet Knowledge's definition of a 5455:

So basically you deleted the information about the whole controversy.. It exists in the Persian wikipedia anyhow, but your deletion of it in English wikipedia was due to your lack of experience on the subject and not researching the previous histories of the topic itself.

1748:

Progress? If by that you mean it was becoming progressively more obvious that nobody agreed with you that the content belonged in the lead section, I would agree. Of you meant you were getting close to getting agreeement that it did belong I would say you have a case of

4234:

their heads. If Sarah Palin lives on Lake Lucille, she probably lives on part of the Snider homestead. Also, Snider's daughter was mayor of Wasilla when Palin was in junior high. Lots of history that's not being taken into account. Like when I was glancing at the

8057:

Awesome, it was good to preserve the content. I'm a *little* concerned about losing the history, but on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give it an importance rating of about a 1.005. (I'll leave the page on my watchlist though, just because I'm like that). :-) FWIW I found

6471:

Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or

4215:

library or through Wi-Fi on my phone. Therefore, it would be a waste of those accounts. Besides, there's a treasure trove of material available at just about any library to anyone willing to spend the time required to find it. For instance, I came across the

8042:

along with what little talk had been on the main staring talk page. It seems to me that if the articles are merged it only makes sense to redirect the talk page, although off the top of my head I am not aware if there is any policy based guidance on the issue.

7974:

My personal preference is that article history should align with the talk page history. I'd just leave the talk page alone ... makes things much easier if anybody wants to unmerge the pages (or create an entirely new article at the merge source) in the future.

6347:

I am usually more than willing to do so, but I'm afraid I don't see how or why it would be a good idea to speculatively userfy something that was properly deleted. without anyone putting themselves forward as being interested in working on it I don't even know

6394: 5419:

of Arax(es) River, which is the border of Iran and Armenia today.... This territory, prior to being called Azerbaijan, was called Albania (Arran), which included the various khanates (khan's districts) of Derband, Shirvan, Daghestan, Talish, Shusha and Moghan

2856:

be resolved, a time-limited poll (say five days or a week) to establish the moratorium would give admins the consensus that is needed to enforce any such moratorium, and the poll structure would hopefully discourage the involved parties from posting walls of

4364:

Listen thanks for the courtesy blanking but I'd rather have the account renamed. I'm finished with wikipedia and I really don't want any reminders as well as the fact that I want to protect my privacy. The name still comes up despite the page being deleted.

2725:. Admins do not make rulings in content disputes and have no special authority over article content. What is needed is for a consensus to be established as to how the article will deal with these issues. If you don't feel the two of you can work that out 923:

Hey Beeblebrox. I was just plodding around wikipedia and I noticed this. I can't see any on-wiki reason for this block... Is there some off-wiki reason, or would you mind pointing me to further on-wiki information. Feel free to email me if you'd rather.

1218:, you'll see I have to constantly go over there to bother the stewards to delete my bot's logs, since I get an error message when I try to delete them myself. It seems to me this would be something that en-wiki ought to be able to handle itself. 7058:

Hello, I read your requirements for a self-requested block and agree to your terms, namely that it's a hard block and don't ask if one is not serious. Would you please block me until December 1, 2012. While I am not under any official ANI or

5372:

matter that material is in the Persian version of Azerbaijan and can be restored by other users in another time.. but your deletion was too hurried without reading the /workpage of the previous article? How can now one access that workpage?--

682:]. Also i see no support in regards to him learning languages and cant find exactly where in the history it was added. Seems to be a fabrication based upon the sources list.(posting here as i have no honest idea how to edit a protected page) 5649:

4891:

I gave it a couple of weeks, but I suspect this may end up before ArbCom. The content issues are continually overshadowed by bickering and general misbehavior on the talk page, and you are quite right that more than one user is responsible.

7364:

The short answer is because I am editing with an iPad and it is sometimes imprecise. I bumped the rollback button when all I meant to do was view the diff, but I thought I had stopped the edit from actually going through. Sorry about that.

1905:

Speedy deletion has a lot of little details like that, it takes a while to get them all down. Even some admins don't know all the ins and outs of the criteria. One good way to be sure is that every time you have nominated something go to

741:

transferred to a "public" account. I saw he was semi-retired, rather than plain retired, so I granted it. I wouldn't had if it was retired as it wouldn't have been an Alternate, but rather a new account. Did I miss something big? Kindly

1190:

Ok. I don't see any reason stewards should be required for that, it would be better to have someone local who is familiar with our deletion policies, so I support he idea in principle, but I'm not sure who should get it. Possibly crats

4744:

You say that the fact you have not been written about much is not a reason for deletion. In point of fact that is the primary reason that articles are deleted from Knowledge. The bar for inclusion is based not on "significance" but on

2445: 7143:

has asked me to make additional cleanups. I'm sorry to say that in trying to clean up close phrasing I've now added added plagerism to the list of editing blunders. Please initiate the block as this is getting worse as it drags on.

4118: 7439: 7432: 5475:

You seem like you are kind of freaking out about this right now, So I am going to stop discussing it for the moment as it doesn't seem like a productive use of time. I'll reply later when you have had a chance to calm down a little.

5005:

article with using more reliable sources (eg. Governmental infos and research which supported from European Commission) and suitable with the version they deleted and I shared my ideas in Talk Page of article. But after few minutes

6399: 5581:

So, that brings us around to the issue of restoring some of the deleted pages. As far as restoring any page into article space, obviously that can't happen due to the AFD decision. I'm looking at the history of the deleted page

5180:

very interesting and well-written, and if I do one day become an admin, something that I could benefit from. I took the liberty of correcting a couple of minor grammar-related errors, but other than those, it was a great read!

1619:

Hi :-) thank you for putting yourself forward for the FDC. I want to draw your attention to the list of questions that people can answer to help the Board of Trustees learn more about the people volunteering for the committee.

3448:

Thank you, and yes the video is on youtube but was uploaded on the official channel of the channel 2 news network (major channel in israeli television), the opening slide sais "internet news 2", so it's not exactly a repost.

7430: 423:", yet "dat is all dat da people need to know" manifests itself more often than is necessary. Getting back to Whitekeys, I would think the fundamental issue there is this: he can give his real name and date of birth to an 3101:

I spent some time on holiday a fortnight ago with a (much cheaper) 7" slab for company and several times thought my fingers / the unresponsive little screen were on the brink of putting some grotesque tag onto an article.

5427:

So you basically deleted all of this information.. the reason that E10204.. wanted the article deleted was because he wanted the working page deleted.. But all of that information exists basically in Persian wikipedia..

6165:

closure. He argued that an admin ought to close the RfC. I therefore asked (on AN/RFC and AN/I) for an uninvolved admin to endorse or overturn the closure, which RegentsPark did yesterday, restoring Nathan's closure.

3086:

Been editing with an iPad. When looking at a list of changes sometimes a lot of links are close together, all I meant to do was look at the diff but the iPad thought my finger was on the "rollback as vandalism" link.

5676:(if you cannot restore the AFD article) but please restore it with its history (as well). Then future users can at least work on the issue and the issue would not keep recurring (which it does once in a while). -- 2110:

I was just reading your post at AN. It reads like an announcement of intent to edit war. Frankly I think the both of you should walk away from this issue and let users who haven't been warring over it sort it out.

6139:. I apparently lost my sense of direction in what I was trying to say, and made it worse by doing it with a new editor. If I make those kinds of bad posts again, please feel free to post a note on my talk page. -- 2851:

I am generally the last person on the world to suggest this, but this may even be that rare case where a poll is appropriate. Since the goal is not to resolve the content dispute but to calm things down so that it

2443:

regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is

1775:

and was very uncivil. Orange Mike only came in at the very, very end and did not explain his view. The last participant was Safehaven86. Although he and I had our differences we were clearly moving toward a common

3132:

5196:

Thanks. The knowledge there was earned through some somewhat embittering experiences with the type of users described therein, so my primary goal in writing up the phenomenon was to serve as a warning to others.

4923:

having to deal with this user. I'm not "downright desperate" to get 12.153.112.21 blocked, but he and Powergate sure seem "downright desperate" to get me blocked and admin approved userspace pages deleted. -

2600: 6046: 2951: 2944: 7602:

It's ok. I know you are acting in good faith to try and help. You just need to be a bit more cautious and probably don't do AFD closes at all, at least for a while. I notice you have had some contact with

3639: 6463:

I am well aware of my responsibilities as an editor. The incivility there, though is not something that I brought there or contributed to. It is, however, something that I am contributing to ending. From

6424:, sir, is looking very cool and interesting. I think we could learn a lot from fifty (or however many) people's answers to a questionnaire like that, and I'm really interested to see where you take this. 5872:

for you. This will afford the opportunity to build on the work already done and to rectify the issue of adequate sourcing. When it is ready it can easily be turned back into a proper article by using the

4137:. It's my hope that a compromise with Arthur could be found that would allow closing the AN3 report about him. If you have anything to add to the discussion on his talk page it would be fine. Thank you, 6322: 5390:.. why? Just to let you know..the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even mention the Caucasian country under Azerbaijan. At least in the pre-Islamic times, it has nothing to do with the modern republic -- 4685:

denoted significance. The fact that there has not been much written about the software or company also does not connote significance. I demonstrates the company likely invests in R&D rather than PR.

1779:

The discussion lasted for only 8 days before you closed it, and the page has not been particularly active. Why not give others the opportunity to weigh in for, say, a couple more months before closing?

7451: 4691:

Composite Software Denodo Technologies Oracle - Data Service Integrator Informatica JBOSS - TEIID Data Virtualization OpenLink Software Radiant Logic VirtualWorks Group Adansys

2026:

to form a new CBS Records in 2006. The dispute has to do with the insertion of too much material which actually belong in either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertainment article.

5411:

Minorsky, V. ; Minorsky, V. "Ādharbaydjān (Azarbāydjān)." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P.Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2007. Brill Online. <

6945: 6411: 767:

that he did it before requesting the right on the other account (ie. making it difficult to communicate with him). Well hopefully I didn't e.c. you while trying to answer my own question :) Kindly

7936: 7125:

was an a good positive roll to more active contribution when this blindsided me. Therefore, I believe that I should make a complete break and evaluate if and how I should continue to edit here.

1794:

A couple of months pf debate over one sentence in the article lead? Why? Why could this possibly be so very important to you? You may want to examine your own motivations for wanting thos so bad.

6297: 335:. I think you can get the IP on a 82.132.249.0/26 rangeblock (only 64 users); alternatively, semi-protection on the article would work (although I think I see productive IP edits in the past). 6064: 1256: 3674:

for the first time in many years. It seems like we have a government/labor union/oil company axis of evil which is content to take care of its own, with the rest of us fending for ourselves.

5868:. A Facebook page and personal observations that they have been heard on Internet radio are not going to be helpful towards establishing that. However, what I can do is restore the page as a 1910:

and double check to be sure there isn't some detail you overlooked or were not aware of. It takes a bit more time but eventually you will be able to nominate articles with total confidence.

8003:: why shouldn't the topic be discussed further there? I mean ... almost nobody's going to see the discussions, but what harm are they going to do? My initial reversion was in the spirit of 7787: 3305:

different facilities, one from the from the L. Greenberg National Institute of Forensic Medicine and the other from the Technion Israeli Institute of Technology which prove the findings as

2376:

Oh dear. I actually declined one of those speedy nominations yeaterday without putting it together. When I see an IP edit its just a string of random numbers to me. Seems likely to me, but

6323: 6670:

obvious choice there, as is normal for an album that in and of itself may not be notable but the group that released it obviously is. That is exactly why I suggested further discussion.

1383: 6341: 5583: 4133:

for some reverts that involved mention of SPLC opinions. So far no admin has decided to close the AN3 report. In the effort to nudge things toward closure, I have begun a discussion at

2848:

Or a time limited-RFC. I agree that thirty days is probably not warranted for such a discussion, but the RFC framework is not set in stone, it can be modified as the situation warrants.

7819: 6970: 6497:

Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

3469: 3404: 3371: 3336: 7206: 1027: 8059: 7063:

I just went through a situation where some of my edits were identified to have close paraphrasing. Long story short the paraphrasing has now been cleaned up. (The long story is at

6995:

Not a problem. However I made one edit where I seriously screwed up the page and I think we both made one more edit before I realized what I had done and reverted to prior version.

6299:

The reason he was not blocked was because he said he was leaving, back in 2005, and he never left. The sockpuppets you questioned are in fact, his. They were checkuser confirmed by

5946: 4413: 4370: 1004: 604:

Sounds like there is an abusive user in your neighborhood. I am not a checkuser myself so I can't really look into it any deeper on my own. What you would need to do is outlined at

6560:"Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI." 6158:

Hi Beeblebrox, would you mind unprotecting the MoS so that the conclusion of the recent RfC can be applied (or adding it yourself if you feel the page needs to remain protected)?

5635:

The discussion has not been active since April, but there have been active discussion since the beginning. I contributed 6 years ago to that article (with a previous a username).

3792: 2318:

If you haven't seen the post at ANI please take a look. Any objection to me indefinitely blocking him now? IMHO I think I can do this on my own without community approval, but...

192: 6961:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 4330: 4044: 4037: 8261:

Several have complained about the needless extra steps in the process. And besides, consensus can be determined from even partially completed questionnaires, I would presume? -

4315: 3457: 3363: 3328: 1868: 7232: 5704: 5697: 3317:

In a site that allowed the "Jerusalem UFO incident" page to remain for months without any sources until I came in and had it removed because it was a definite BLATANT HOAX and

5110: 3763: 2595:

has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "CBS Records". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.

1255:

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but one problem is that there's a bug or inconsistency with whatever code determines how many revisions a page has. My log page, for example, had

326:, you indicated that you blocked the users responsible for the edit warring. I saw the request, but ended up acting as an editor rather than an admin. The person you blocked 7788: 851:

Hey Beeblebrox. You indef blocked Jeffwang but left a temporary notice on his talk page. I don't know which one is a mistake, but you might want to clarify that. Thanks!

264:

to reflect that consensus, noting "Any user may discuss or comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the review (either declining or unblocking).".

7479:

See the discussion there: as you have salted the title, I referred the userfication request to you but offered to email the article to Wikilogin123, which I have now done.

5423:

north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent

8394: 4409: 4366: 3912: 2476:

I stronly prefer it to the term "sockmaster" which I think plays into the sockpupeteers image of themselves as a clever genius circumventing WP with their brilliant plan.

2202: 6476:

Warning others that others have been brought to task for violating the sanctions there is clearly irrelevant. Complaining about an editors conduct is clearly irrelevant.

3872:

It seems that Moxy cannot admit that what he believes to be true the admins do not agree with. I lost my patience with him as you can see from the back and forth in the

8199: 3482: 3442: 3355: 2599:

is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the

589:

I think my IP address is constantly changing. So, sometime It shows that Your IP is blocked by checkuser. This glitch is very annoying. Can you help me in this matter ?

5280: 3295: 594: 390:...since I couldn't go back to sleep after being woken up by my roommate's boyfriend for no reason. Picture a cross between John Belushi's character Ron Decline from 8493: 5652:

I should note other quotes also exist that might differ with this opinion and that is why it is good to have them all in one article..else this issue keeps coming up.

4394: 3048: 3037: 1599:

I closed the AFD, I did not participate in it and I have no opinion on the matter. I did re-open the stale merger discussion, your comments may be of more use there.

570:

The message I'm talking about was never removed and you may see it on my talk page. The whole thing is messed up. Can you please read my explanation in detail. Thx --

7815: 4669: 4014: 3583: 2989: 288: 8008: 4714: 1640:

I made a minor amendment to your closing statement in the YRC RFC to clarify one word which I felt could have given rise to a misunderstanding about the timeframes

8621: 8603: 8573: 8537: 8430: 8408: 7698: 7331: 5726: 5220: 5206: 4807: 4092: 4051: 3744: 2995: 2958: 2931: 2874:

and was ready to be done with it, but then I saw on my watchlist that LittleBen was going back in and posting, not new remarks at the bottom but modifications to

1652: 1427: 350:

I don't have the slightest idea how to do a rangeblock I'm afraid. I'll watchlist the article though and try to keep an eye out for a return of the same problems.

7766: 7554: 3007: 1449: 943: 918: 7111: 6618: 5685: 5465: 4728: 3774: 3698:

Homer in mid-September. The wind is howling, it rains most every day, and half the good places to eat are closed while the staff takes a long post-summer break.

3615: 3587: 1932:? I tagged it with notEnglish. Is that ok? Even the title is in some other language. SO it was difficult to ensure if this existed in other Wikimedia projects.-- 1071: 1042: 988: 964: 903: 897: 786: 7917: 4417: 4374: 2546: 312: 165:

The consensus at the RFC was that it should be broadened and moved. There was no mandate that it be done immediately, but there is nothing to stop anyone being

7474: 2454: 1641: 1106:

I think it would be wise to give it another day or so to make sure all involved parties have had a chance to review the compromise solution and respond to it.

694: 617: 7868: 7848: 7092: 6800:

listed along with its release details and chart activity. That's why I nominated the article for deletion rather than merging. Am I missing something here? --

6597: 6449: 5596: 5542: 5522: 5504: 5485: 5399: 5381: 5366: 4568: 4353: 4219:'s history of Homer the other day. Looking through the 1930s-1950s photos made me realize that Homer hasn't really changed all that much in the years since. 4203: 3550: 3535: 3521: 3286: 3003: 1173: 836: 812: 665: 273: 8520: 8508: 7570: 6572: 6079: 6017: 6003: 4998: 4958: 4781: 3152: 2634: 2085: 1431: 1310: 1178:

If a page has more than 5000 revisions, in addition to 'delete' you also need 'bigdelete' to delete it (i.e. admins on this wiki cannot delete such pages).--

548: 8554: 7616: 7394: 6283: 5031: 4901: 4884: 4869: 3904: 3737: 2884:

less than a week later, where the presenter mentioned that nobody cites IAR anymore. Afterword several of us were discussing how he didn't get that admins

2757: 2742: 2162: 2120: 2050: 1209: 1185: 1115: 448: 8475: 7672: 7520: 6865:

Oh I agree, leaving the title as a redirect is definitely the way to go. But since we all agree that we should not have a stand-alone article on this, the

6759: 6638: 6244: 6220: 6201: 3756: 2342: 1985: 1971: 1941: 1919: 1635: 1159: 1150:

happen, I guess; I just don't think it's a natural fit into OS duties. Rolling it into 'crat or making it a stand-alone right would make more sense to me.

891: 729: 247: 229: 8588: 7956:

In general, better to merge/history merge the Talk pages, followed by judicious archiving, (and moving/merging of any Talk page archives) I'm guessing? --

7950: 7839:

arrived at at the deletion discussion because it is important to your job. I'm sure channel guide information is available from the companies themselves.

6929: 6879: 6840: 6809: 6771: 6745: 6679: 4977: 4496: 3891:

At this point it seems unlikely that administrative action alone can resolve this problem. I again suggest that this dispute has risen to the level where

3780: 3707: 2574: 2557: 1667: 1531: 1513: 1499: 1485: 493: 300: 178: 8371: 8139: 8073: 8052: 7781: 7728: 7502: 7488: 7299: 7285: 7261: 7247: 5958: 5886: 5781: 4938: 4702: 3719:" loads and loads of ignorant arguments, ethnic/political/religious mudslinging, wildly off-topic rambling postings of all kinds, name calling, trolling" 3264:

many users operate under the mistaken assumption that discussing on the talk page at the same time as edit warring makes it ok. It does not. You discuss

2906: 2688: 2674: 1851: 1789: 1762: 1608: 1227: 377: 359: 160: 7419: 7192: 7134: 6386: 6361: 5292: 4661: 4001: 3987: 3773:

is what I found. It provides no indication that the book exists, and therefore, I believe that it is a hoax. Please take another look at it. Thank you,

3236: 3218: 2898: 2711: 2485: 2406:

However we set time limits for debate and decision making here at Knowledge. An administrator gave us three days of lock down to come up with consensus.

2389: 2290: 400:

fame) portray in that bit which ends with "Hey Joe Beer. When you can't afford Natural Ice.", and you get an idea of what I have to put up with there.

8469: 8239: 8225: 8211: 8193: 8022: 7386: 7374: 6545: 6530: 5346: 5190: 4968:, over the (unsourced) objections of other editors. I'm sure I would be told cogently and with policy sources if I should be doing anything different. 4667: 4119:

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles?

2307: 2254: 1822: 1733:. I don't see consensus. I thought we were making good progress before Naapple declared "This conversation has gone on long enough," and, "The End." -- 1715: 8342:

by Eric. I have tried to explain to the editor that the content being removed was not appropriate, but they have responded with rude replies about my

5122: 5079: 5057: 4853: 4634:. My wife thought I was having a stroke. Thank you for brightening up my boring Knowledge isolation here in this remote village in the jungle. 4455: 3111: 3096: 1354: 1340: 1268: 1250: 8303: 8285: 8125: 7986: 7965: 7215: 7208: 7153: 7015: 7004: 6907: 6634: 4982: 3861: 3382:

was a hoax but rather that the article you posted was a hoax. If it was not, show me the sources proving as much and I would be happy to restore it.

3123: 1685: 1421: 690: 7405: 7031:

I think the idea question should probably be merged to "examples". But I didn't do anything with examples (save toy with the header) or enforcement.

5165: 4309: 4261:

that "New remarks below old remarks. Don't insert remarks into the middle of a thread." Kaz is inserting comments into the middle of the thread on

3822: 3498: 2780: 6954: 6910:. Seems this article (at an alternately-capitalized title) was deleted 3½ years ago by AfD. Had I known that in the first place, I would have just 4860:

too. I archived anything older than September but maybe now would be a good time to clear the air and by archiving most of the rest of it as well.

3593: 6706: 6702: 6698: 6176:

Darkfrog then attempted to implement the conclusion of the RfC, and Noetica reverted him also. That is the version of the page that is protected.

5923: 5850: 5822: 5722: 2357:

may have resumed editing immediately after coming of his IP block. I am tempted to reblock, but I would like your input on this. You may find his

1630: 5911: 5838: 5810: 3075: 2733:. I see you have already tried to engage the other user in discussion, hopefully that along woth the protection will help resolve the situation. 2721:, protection usually means just protecting whatever version is currently on the page. (for a more lighthearted description of the same issue see 2434: 2225: 1413: 1077: 327: 8294:

I thought about going through and adding it to all the pages started before I added it, but decided that the same logic applies (in reverse) : )

8039:

Ok, if we could all just back up a few feet, what little discussion there has been in the years of this talk page existing was in fact archived

7722: 4761:

such as yourself. If we did that we would have to cover every organization on earth so long as they took a moment to tell us how great they are.

4580: 3713: 3687: 1593: 8164:

is to keep them editable, since direct cross-project redirect links produce no "redirected from" message or link to permit editing. Of course

7040: 5255: 5138: 3465: 2529: 5244: 4284: 145: 7607:, he is pretty much an expert as far the whole new page patrol thing, if he thinks you are doing a good job at it I'm sure that is the case. 7547: 6958: 6947: 6581: 6465: 5667: 5445: 5338: 4134: 1929: 385: 8528:

GiantSnowman has been over-zealous and can you instruct him of the known criteria of articles. I don't know if he understands them. Sign!!!

5345:

I'm not sure I fully understand what it is you are trying to say, but that page would appear to me to be covered by the decision reached at

1345:

Oh, certainly, I will be happy to include anyone, especially the knowledgeable folks who've performed this task on meta, in the discussion.

8476: 8230:

I'm twitching with laughter about combining the subheadings of this and the next message in a variety of expostulations and imperatives. --

7925: 6663: 5642:(from a history point of view at the time). If all the quotes are restored back, eventually, the article will be rewritten. For example: 5071: 5019: 4294: 2927: 2265: 1899: 1234: 949:

commented. He finally redirected his talk page to his user page so Beeblebrox blocked him for not desiring to be a part of the community.

294: 5267: 4643: 3965: 3885: 3200: 2659: 2429: 598: 510: 7076: 7020:

Re-arranged and reworded. Split a couple and added a couple. And tried to follow a pattern of asking the commenter how they think things

5977:. It took me all of half a minute or so to find the right account: just look for the one that has been doing stunningly similar editing. 5533:

Okay, thanks. When you have time, please read the /workingpage of the previous article and its history. I know deletes can be undone --

2584: 1730: 579: 420: 6274:

As we are both obviously working towards introducing some sanity into this messy situation I am more than happy to let your edit stand.

5986: 5156:(and is now in archive 240, section titled "for the future") but spilled over onto both our talk pages until I removed the thread here. 4800: 4793: 4631: 4107: 2615:

Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2012.

1813:

by explaining in detail my motives in the discussion thread. It seems that you never read the thread before closing it. Please do so. --

204: 8000: 7460: 6553: 6371: 6306:

Obviously he has not left and he is still actively editing, and given his past conduct, he is likely under another account. Regards, —

4481: 4238:

website, look at the attention given to Coleman Barney versus Richard Frank, and tell me who is the more historically important person.

3956:

From one admin to another for your tireless work on AN and other kinds of disputes and problematic areas. It ain't gone unnoticed.

2765: 1880: 1742: 1549: 7276:. Although the article could still use some cleaning up, a lead section, and more consistent formatting between the various sections. 7064: 4088: 1100: 124: 8297:

If we see any substantively completed pages not in the cat, we can always drop someone a helpful note on their talk page, I think. -

5632:. It does not even correspond to the modern day country (where many allege the name was chosen to detach the historical Azerbaijan). 5211:

Yes, if you can use your negative experiences to help others out, you are making something good come out of it. I say bravo to that.

3017: 2022:

and CBS gave Sony only a temporary license on the CBS name which forced the name changes and eventually allowed CBS's parent company

1470: 642: 4177: 2327: 2270:

This is not possible. I am merely raising the fact that Altfish80 is a sock puppet that was created to attack the page. Thanks, M

2190: 2143: 2104: 2066: 2035: 1561: 702: 110:

Blanked this, as it really did amount to a tangent (as opposed to what I seem to be accused of filling articles with). Moved it to

6521:, and the fact that you are attempting to invoke the arbitration sanctions for that page is at least tangentially related anyway. 6352:

to userfy it to, and it is also unclear how one would contact these students, who remained strangely silent during the AFD itself.

6118: 4827: 4340:

for a previously uninvolved admin to come in and close the move discussion. The rest of it is probably going to need some form of

4247: 3975: 3129: 3060: 2440: 2073: 7897: 5304: 1398:

I am awarding you this barnstar for your comment, "We can't led Assad decide who is allowed to edit here." Thank you Beeblebrox

531: 151:

I wonder if broadening the article must be done right away. The DRV is over as "endorse", and I'm still waiting for your reply. --

8697: 8689: 8684: 8672: 8667: 8659: 6166: 6041: 5691: 4913: 3258: 2802: 2696: 2470: 2298:

Don't know what you mean by "this is not possible" but I was posting on your talk at the same time.please see my messages there.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 7410:

I've already done that actually. I still get the inline rollback link when viewing page histories, which is what happened here.

6650:

was the most comprehensive thing found: just a track listing and a chart position, and the chart position is already covered at

6317: 4552: 866: 7596: 7566: 7543: 6433: 5897:- I see your point now. Yes, please do that and i will look into it with more precision and maybe as some help from their fans. 4130: 4063: 2984: 2608: 2401: 1136: 1018: 760: 344: 6329:

Please userfy this article and tell the students where it can be found, they may want to try to improve it further. Thanks! --

3807: 3010:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2965:

Hi Beeblebrox, I replied to your suggestion a few days ago. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think?

2834:

Without a consensus, there is simply no basis for an admin to do anything here, and that conversation was clearly not helping.

2516: 7657: 7527:

nomination, as I think the creator's objection might be justified, Sandbakk seems to be a notable jazz popularizer in Norway

6501:

While it is essential to comment on the climate of incivility, naming specific editors is not, in my opinion, appropriate. --

6148: 6135:. Not sure if it was me identified in the close (which I appreciate), but I did need to apologize to Logos-Word, which I did 4832: 4604: 4437: 4359: 3013: 2370: 2186: 6266: 6162: 5436:) 21:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC) And there was really "no concensus" based on the votes of the talkpage but you deleted it?. -- 4146: 3846: 2791: 1890:

Hi! Thank you for clarifying. I may have made similar mistakes a few times more. However, I will be more cautious. Cheers!--

8130:

Assuming this isn't a joke, I believe it is just an issue of a technical inability to redirect from WP to another website.

8103: 6182: 5974: 5780: 3762: 3413: 2604: 1614: 255: 8454: 7358: 6172: 6169: 2630: 1771:

Please re-read that thread. There were only 4 participants, including me. From the very start Naapple flagrantly violated

1700: 1688:. Although you abstained, I appreciate your sentiments and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Knowledge. 1311:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Knowledge%3AAdministrator+intervention+against+vandalism

7811: 6510: 6485: 5555: 5534: 5496: 5457: 5437: 5429: 5391: 5373: 5330: 5277: 4969: 4518: 4169: 3250: 2748:

dispute resolution but I doubt that we will be seeing eye to eye on this so I'm also going to put in for a third opinion.

2420: 2195: 2006:

article. This incarnation of CBS Records is not related to the former CBS Records entities which changed their names to

8347: 8343: 7348: 4266: 1304: 7705: 6136: 6032:

Thanks. Although "Disruption is not tolerated" is more neutral. I will retrain the old title in the collapsed section.

4710: 4273: 4252: 4026: 3650: 3461: 3400: 3367: 3332: 3227:. Because the quote uses your signature and timestamp exactly, please let me know if you want it removed. Thank you. 2823: 1566: 7311: 5145: 8313: 8267: 7461:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates.2C_2012

3621: 3476: 1729:

Beeblebrox, I'm not at all familiar with Knowledge administration, so perhaps you could explain to me why you closed

1374: 1164:

I don't actually know what the userright entails and I can't seem to find any information on it. What is it exactly?

910: 432: 261: 111: 6989: 6304: 1215: 8335: 5177: 2510: 1298: 1286: 881: 698: 6729: 6725: 6721: 5249: 3646:

and others. I attended (even though I'm cautious about my real-life identity on here, I'm the guy seated next to

2920: 2913: 2400:

Something you told to Richard Arthur Norton apparently gave him a very wrong impression of what consensus is. See

7219: 5752: 5171: 4593: 3512:

are not really the same thing, a single admin can't ban anyone, but I understand that you probably meant block.)

2976: 1273:

Stewards recently discussed this issue with sysadmins. Fortunatelly, VasilievVV created a tool for this problem:

129: 6395:

Knowledge:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4#Talk:Marvel_Studios.23Disney_Distribution

3342:

See, you merely claimed those entities investigated this supposed incident. Tell you what, you come up with one

1292: 8121: 6188:

The protection has nothing to do with who was right or wrong, it was done solely to stop the edit warring. See

5919: 5846: 5818: 5320: 5315: 5274: 4652:

I normally try to avoid "in-jokes" but that one was too much too pass up. Glad it served its intended purpose!

3249:

I used the talkpage and did not edit war..The issue has been discussed numerously on the talkpage. Thank you--

2772: 2416: 1834:. Re-opening the discussion would make it take longer to reach the same result again, but if you want to keep 269: 7711: 6400:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_4#Talk:Marvel_Studios.23Disney_Distribution

4997:

article with an argument like "source" wasn't suitable with info and change that part of article with totally

1280: 6132: 4609: 3934: 3560: 3157: 2994:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2904: 2592: 2358: 8351: 3657:

decades. Maybe I should have gone to Arizona anyway, since I had the plane ticket. Last winter was ROUGH.

8647: 8421: 8385: 8362: 8339: 8328: 7512: 7053: 6628: 5216: 5186: 4749:. Knowledge aims to only cover items that meet its definition of notability, as reflected in coverage from 3139: 2642: 2286: 484:

named by the legislature. Plus I have never seen anyone who can drink that much and still hit every note.

47: 17: 7581:

I am pretty OK @ New page patrolling; so should I continue that? I am sorry for the mess I have created. @

4583:

because I believe you are involved in this case and if it is accepted, your input is required. Thank you.

3834: 7238:

I actually came to the same conclusion and am working on it right now. Should be fixed in a few minutes.

6793: 6651: 5230: 5027: 1885: 1144: 1048: 896:

Please also change it from "temporarily" to "indefinite" on his alternative account's talk page. Thanks,

5097:. Administrators do not have any special authority over the actual content of articles. I would suggest 8638: 7562: 7539: 7088: 6716:

As for redirecting, I tried: The title previously existed as a redirect, since 2009. A stub version at

6060: 5994:

Yep. and I just moved the declined request that you pasted over the block notice. hooray for teamwork!

5309: 3777: 3590: 2446:

Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#lead:_conservative_leaning_or_independent,User_talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen_Reports

2333:

Had a look, replied there, short answer is it has npthing to do with the terms established at the RFC.

1074: 1024: 982: 937: 900: 38: 7324: 7317: 6580:

I'm not sure this deserves a reply at all as it seems you read the first two sentences of this remark

3693:

We never stay at the actual resort. the public use cabins in the rec area are more our speed, and the

2213:

as indicated by the CU admin. Subsequently, it was indeed deleted but a newbie who was clueless about

1320: 365: 7891: 7835:

for industry insiders. So, as you may be gather ing from my remarks, I do not intend to overturn the

6647: 5760: 5412: 5066:

Thank you very much for your answer. I listened your advise and again opened a section in Talk Page:

4509: 3867: 1724: 1541: 1435: 265: 8040: 7856: 3642:. Only the second one has any relevant history. They had a big pow-wow here about a week ago with 2041:

I'm not looking to get involved in the actual content dispute, just shutting down the edit warring.

1658:

Not sure that was necessary since he obviously is familiar with the terms, but that's fine with me.

1324: 364:

The IP's already twice reverted me to re-add the non-compliant source, so I opened an ANI thread at

8482:

Thanks for rectifying my over-zealous striking - but the editor in question has since reverted you

6611: 6296:

Not to drudge up something entirely pointless, but I thought I should clear up the matter in this.

5750:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

5639: 4964:

Thank you, Beeblebrox. I am restoring "my" userpages to what I think they ought to be according to

4463: 4103: 4081: 4074: 3417: 3224: 3042: 2174: 2011: 1518:

George, I am watching the talk page, let's please try to keep this in one place, and please try to

556: 308: 186: 7939:

ever happens again. Therefore, I've reverted your redirect of the talk page. Hope you don't mind.

2414:, and I appreciate that you did, but could you tell him directly? He still just does not get it.-- 720:

on the talk page, and make a specific proposal for exactly what edits you believe should be made.

8414: 8378: 8355: 8155: 6568: 6429: 6421: 6114: 5681: 5663: 5538: 5500: 5461: 5441: 5433: 5395: 5377: 5334: 5212: 5182: 4973: 4543: 4326: 4173: 3531: 3494: 3254: 2354: 1461:

I have changed the scope of this article without merging. I just moved portions. Is that okay? --

1238: 1155: 827: 777: 751: 638: 527: 130: 105: 5791:

I am pretty new to Knowledge but i want to make a page that previously had been deleted by you.

8584: 8551: 8517: 8504: 8490: 8486:

added some more !votes. As I don't wish to appear involved, please can you intervene? Regards,

8465: 8404: 8281: 8207: 8135: 8048: 7913: 7864: 7844: 7668: 7612: 7498: 7470: 7447: 7415: 7370: 7281: 7243: 7188: 7107: 7000: 6836: 6767: 6675: 6593: 6526: 6445: 6357: 6279: 6240: 6197: 6013: 5999: 5982: 5968: 5954: 5882: 5626: 5592: 5518: 5481: 5362: 5202: 5161: 5118: 5053: 4954: 4932: 4897: 4865: 4777: 4739:

that the article should be deleted. Consensus is Knowledge's primary model for decision making.

4706: 4657: 4564: 4492: 4451: 4390: 4349: 4305: 4199: 3983: 3900: 3857: 3818: 3752: 3703: 3611: 3546: 3517: 3438: 3387: 3351: 3282: 3214: 3092: 2894: 2738: 2670: 2626: 2553: 2481: 2385: 2338: 2303: 2168: 2158: 2116: 2046: 1967: 1915: 1871:. Sorry to keep pestering you on this issue; I wish there was a less painful way to do this. -- 1847: 1799: 1758: 1711: 1663: 1604: 1527: 1481: 1454: 1327:

in this discussion because they are the ones who already have this experience although they're

1205: 1169: 1111: 1038: 887: 808: 725: 714: 661: 613: 584: 544: 489: 355: 284: 225: 174: 6697:, I admit), and 4 other editors agreed with my assessment (see in particular the responses by 5349:

and as such I have deleted it. Any "working pages" on this topic should either be subpages of

2878:. Rather than have another argument with him it seemed best to just shut the whole thing down. 1621: 8354:. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the situation and see what needs to be done. 7757:. Do not worry; I will NOT change the whole layout into fitting the failed proposed scope. -- 7589: 7558: 7535: 7084: 6615: 6460:

First, thank you very much for taking the time to help out with reducing the nonsense there.

6312: 6261: 6056: 6027: 4880: 4849: 4821: 4262: 4258: 3920: 3881: 3786: 3627: 3184: 2980: 2753: 2707: 2139: 2100: 2081: 2062: 2031: 1444: 1182: 1094: 1085: 1012: 970: 925: 914: 575: 564: 2177:

and voice your opinions about it there? We are trying to come up with a resolution. Thanks,

969:

That makes sense. I guess I didn't go far back enough to see that many issues. Cheers Ryan.

8499:

Sigh. I've re-instated the striking of extra !votes and left some advice on his talk page.

7888: 7807: 7691: 7684: 7653: 7513: 6144: 5907: 5834: 5806: 5705:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject RISC OS#Editnotices for Category:Template-Class RISC OS articles

5326: 5286: 5015: 4698: 4269: 4209: 4165: 4142: 3732: 3606:

tagged as a hoax, so it was easy to see the pattern, but thank you very much for the star!

3453: 3409: 3209:

I was about to give you one for shutting down that pointless DRN thread, I'll do that now.

2643: 2459: 2323: 2313: 2274: 1981: 1937: 1895: 1504:

Why is the protection necessary? As Hutton said, I've not done any edit warring, have I? --

1406: 1328: 957: 859: 686: 671: 392: 243: 200: 8: 8617: 8599: 8569: 8561: 8544: 8533: 7777: 7762: 7140: 6966: 6925: 6875: 6805: 6741: 6659: 5630: 5576:

misplaced. I have no opinion on the matter myself, my actions were purely administrative.

5240: 4946: 4600: 4477: 4243: 4099: 3683: 3631: 3504:

Not really sure why you brought this to me specifically, but I will have a look. (FYI, a

2972: 2785: 2618:

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.

2596: 2565: 2520: 1997: 1648: 1509: 1495: 1466: 590: 444: 304: 156: 141: 120: 8543:

Beeblebrox - you might want to take a look at some potential legal threats made over at

6255:

drama to the mix, feel free to undo my revert for any reason or for no reason at all! --

3128:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

2439:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

8332: 8113: 8068: 8017: 7981: 7945: 7719: 7344: 7295: 7257: 7228: 6642:

least 3 editors made good-faith efforts to find significant secondary source coverage (

6564: 6425: 6110: 5915: 5842: 5814: 5677: 5673: 5659: 5622: 5615: 5611: 5387: 5300: 5106: 4787: 4529: 4422: 4322: 4216: 4068: 4031: 3974:

Well thank you! It's nice to get the right kind of notice when one has recently gotten

3828: 3665:. Then again, other chambers of commerce were pushing at around the same time for the 3527: 3490: 2799: 2684: 2655: 2182: 1876: 1818: 1785: 1738: 1627: 1585: 1336: 1246: 1196:

to do it the way OS does everything, quietly. If we had to go ask a crat it could be a

1151: 1121: 818: 797: 768: 742: 649: 634: 623: 523: 373: 340: 8060:

Knowledge talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 8#Are redirect talk pages also redirected?

6758:

Apparently someone else sees a point to the merger discussion, which is now open at

4965: 4757:

that notability, and we obviously can't just take the word of someone with an obvious

4678:

effort as our page was in the review, comment, edit mode within the review structure.

2217:

just went to re-tagged the user page. Could you help to delete it? Thanks and best. --

8548: 8514: 8487: 7828: 7494: 7466: 7443: 7290:

Thanks. Just glancing at it, the article looks a lot better now than it did before.

7150: 7131: 7073: 6690: 6518: 6380: 6335: 6009: 5978: 5718: 5263: 4926: 4639: 4154: 4122: 4058: 4022: 3997: 3961: 3232: 3196: 3033: 3024:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2819: 2622: 2366: 1955: 1542: 1350: 1319:

skilled (!) enwiki users should be allowed to use this right, please also invite (!)

1305:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Knowledge%3ASandbox

1264: 1223: 1132: 629: 417: 317: 8331:) is a relatively inexperienced user who has been causing trouble. He complained to 2564:

Thanks. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging but I couldn't remember. —

1434:

is in accordance with your close. Could you please take a look and clarify. Perhaps

676:

Some information in this article about the graduation at the age of 15 from sources

516: 8450: 8322: 8235: 8221: 8189: 8099: 7961: 7832: 7584: 7484: 7383: 7355: 6541: 6506: 6481: 6307: 6300: 6256: 6085: 6075: 6037: 5869: 5658:

for mediation on how to proceed with the article sometime in the future. Thanks.--

5040: 5002: 4994: 4983: 4876: 4845: 4833: 4816: 4300:

I am so sick of this bullshit. Go find some other admin to babysit the lot of you.

4280: 3916: 3892: 3877: 3873: 3635: 3147: 2938: 2868: 2749: 2718: 2703: 2348: 2282: 2135: 2127: 2096: 2077: 2058: 2027: 2019: 2007: 1696: 1439: 1197: 1179: 846: 571: 557: 501: 2613:

please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.

8580: 8500: 8461: 8400: 8277: 8203: 8146: 8131: 8087: 8044: 7931: 7909: 7860: 7840: 7664: 7608: 7411: 7366: 7277: 7239: 7184: 7103: 6996: 6832: 6763: 6671: 6589: 6522: 6441: 6407: 6353: 6291: 6275: 6236: 6215: 6193: 6189: 6177: 6140: 5995: 5950: 5878: 5588: 5514: 5477: 5358: 5350: 5198: 5157: 5114: 5075: 5049: 5023: 4950: 4893: 4861: 4773: 4732: 4653: 4560: 4488: 4447: 4433: 4386: 4345: 4337: 4301: 4195: 4138: 3979: 3896: 3853: 3814: 3748: 3726: 3699: 3666: 3607: 3542: 3513: 3505: 3434: 3383: 3347: 3278: 3210: 3107: 3088: 3071: 3056: 2890: 2734: 2666: 2549: 2477: 2381: 2377: 2334: 2319: 2299: 2154: 2112: 2042: 2023: 1977: 1963: 1959: 1933: 1911: 1891: 1843: 1835: 1795: 1754: 1707: 1659: 1600: 1557: 1523: 1477: 1399: 1201: 1165: 1107: 1034: 950: 883: 852: 804: 721: 657: 609: 540: 485: 351: 280: 239: 221: 196: 170: 8646:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

7438:

Please help get at least the latest copy of this article before it was deleted:

6192:, which I imagine a user as experienced as yourself is already aware of anyway. 5672:

Since restoring Workingpage is not a problem for yourself, please restore it in

4688:

Finally, if Stone Bond does not qualify then neither do any of the following...

3978:

Not that I am ashamed of my remarks, but to see them used by Fox News... gross.

3223:

I moved the star and copied a choice quote to help me remember in the future to

1299:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=George+W.+Bush

1287:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Vladimir+Putin

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8613: 8595: 8565: 8529: 8440: 8216:

Fair enough. Good move, I say. Could have been worse. Could have been DBAC. --

8177: 8160: 8088: 7773: 7758: 7742: 7730: 7576: 7338: 6962: 6921: 6914: 6871: 6801: 6737: 6717: 6655: 6643: 6232: 5874: 5236: 4574: 4473: 4239: 4045:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Weirdness at User talk:Example

3943: 3842: 3694: 3679: 3647: 3569: 3274: 3244: 2967: 2864:

To be honest I wasn't going to formally close it, I pretty much marked it with

2776: 2449: 2214: 2210: 1831: 1750: 1673: 1644: 1505: 1491: 1462: 1455: 1057: 605: 440: 323: 166: 152: 137: 116: 6760:

Talk:Green Day discography#Proposing merging Tune In, Tokyo... to this article

6303:

after relentless sockpuppeting to !vote on my RFA's and vandalize my userpage.

6168:

Noetica reverted RegentsPark's too, though RegentPark's restored the closure,

6094: 4727:

First off, the deletion was not my idea or my decision, I closed he debate at

4377:

PS This account is only temporary for the purpose of dealing with my request.

4336:

Please see my response to the thread directly above this one. I have asked at

3396: 3166: 2410: 1476:

You will find my answer on the article's talk page and in its protection log.

479:

I'm kind of surprised he even has an article. If he is notable enough, surely

407:

While not the reason I'm bringing this up, I pretty much gave up on improving

8117: 8064: 8013: 8004: 7977: 7941: 7874: 7836: 7738: 7715: 7622: 7531: 7291: 7253: 7224: 7060: 6588:

to resolve. From your remarks it appears you arrived at the same conclusion.

6455: 6251: 6126: 6052: 5354: 5296: 5132: 5102: 4758: 4736: 4502: 4382: 4291: 4160: 4126: 3992:

Ah! Wrong barnstar - it should have been the 'Defender of the Wiki' one ;)

3800: 3796: 3662: 3643: 3640:

Office of the Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects

3509: 3322:

almost 20 years has never once been proved to be a hoax, and actually proved

3188: 3180: 2842: 2795: 2680: 2651: 2248: 2219: 2206: 2178: 2150: 1907: 1872: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1781: 1772: 1734: 1624: 1578: 1332: 1293:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=The+Beatles

1242: 1086: 817:

Makes perfect sense and sorry for the e.c. :). Thanks Beeblebrox. Take Care.

467: 413: 408: 369: 336: 6831:

stand-alone article, but the redirect serves a valid navigational purpose.

2491: 1274: 652:. I don't anticipate the situation working itself out, I think some sort of 506:

Remember closing the discussion at Sean Combs? It's rolled on, anyway. See:

8609: 8198:

This was wayyyy back, but it appears it was moved to meta in the middle of

7604: 7524: 7399: 7145: 7126: 7068: 6416: 6376: 6331: 5865: 5770: 5713: 5259: 5153: 5098: 5094: 5045: 4750: 4635: 4618: 4472:

over at es.wiki and requested the corresponding speedy deletion. Cheers! --

4341: 4112: 4018: 3993: 3957: 3343: 3270: 3228: 3192: 3029: 3025: 2815: 2730: 2726: 2465: 2362: 1839: 1346: 1281:

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/revcounter.php?wiki=enwiki_p&title=Main+Page

1260: 1219: 1128: 735: 653: 332: 7678: 6720:

was also redirected in 2009 (both on the basis of NALBUMS). Black60dragon

5860:

Unfortunately the reasons you present here that they are now sufficiently

3429:

from a source as opposed to a repost from YouTube, it seems this is not a

331:

some sort of "birth record look up website" which definitely doesn't meet

8446: 8318: 8253: 8231: 8217: 8185: 8095: 7957: 7480: 7395:

Knowledge:Customizing_watchlists#Remove_or_modify_the_.5Brollback.5D_link

7380: 7352: 6537: 6502: 6477: 6153: 6071: 6033: 5861: 4746: 4469: 4276: 3134: 2395: 2278: 2131: 2092: 2072:

Norton is at it again. Please take action. I've already report this in

2003: 1692: 412:

articles of people of marginal notability. The pro wrestling version of

260:

Per your closing-ish note on the AN discussion on unblock policy, I have

5295:

of sections in the RfC you started. I hope you're okay with it. Thanks.

4993:

Hi. In 27th September, one user delete some important informations from

4290:

wants me to do then I will follow him. I am only copying him after-all.

874: 6975: 6403: 5513:

Please stop posting here and go do something else for a while. Thanks.

5007: 4987: 4429: 4009: 3103: 3067: 3052: 2808: 1553: 8579:

I am watching that discussion, there is no need to replicate it here.

8062:, which seems to indicate that it can be up to WikiProject consensus. 3602:

Well, to be fair I had just deleted another article they created that

1490:

After I saw the protection log, I wonder: Have I screwed up lately? --

299:

Beeblebrox, just a note to let you know that I've moved your question

8299: 8263: 8150:

was intended humorously, the question was in good faith. I've since

7036: 7011: 6985: 5747:

Hello, Just Step Sideways. Please check your email; you've got mail!

3838: 2496: 7523:) and it is repeatedly recreated since then. I've declined the last 6324:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ithaca Bakery and Collegetown Bagels

4135:

User talk:Arthur Rubin#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

8011:

where archiving the discussions of the merged pages caused mayhem.

7859:

a project just for this purpose is suddenly founded. There you go.

7710:

Hi, Beeblebrox. See excellent comment of yours featured on my page

7519:

Hello Beeblebrox. You deleted this article on 24 October 2012 (see

6047:

Looks like I am getting dragged into this by editors' using my name

5625:

is Azerbaijan. This is the definition at least in the prestigious

5407:

Also you did not count the keep votes? They were more. Just FYI:

5142: 4837: 480: 7555:

Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_28#Ernst-Wiggo_Sandbakk

5413:

http://www.encislam.brill.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_COM-0016

5109:, they can help with a wide variety of issues. I will also ask at 3346:

that mentions this supposed incident and I will restore the page.

1301:— most likely to be problematic, you should not really delete this 1010:

might be seen as impersonating you or if you would be ok with it.

511:

WP:ANEW#User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Gimmetoo (Result: )

7753: 6440:

an actual policy proposal, but this was never going to be easy.

4579:

Greetings Beeblebrox. I want you to know that I mentioned you at

368:

to see if there's someone who can lock up the range for a while.

7930:

Hi Beeblebrox, I don't have any objections to your merge of the

4222:

The borough's library director has a column every Monday in the

3433:

hoax after all and as such I will go ahead nd restore the page.

3187:. As one who was trying to figure out what the problem was from 2722: 2209:← per SPI result, I requested for it to be speedily deleted per 7747: 5903:

I thank you again, you have been very helpful in this matter.

5067: 2999: 1678:

I think I already thanked you, but I just wanted to make sure.

8094:

Any reason that shouldn't be a hard redirect? Just curious. --

5314:

On your deletion, I would like to say there used to be a page

5111:

Knowledge talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board

4722:

Ok, it seems there are a few things that need to be clarified.

1392:

The defender of freedom of expression on the internet barnstar

648:

I can't do anything administrativley as I would be considered

8151: 7789:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups

3300:

This page should not have been speedily deleted because... (

2519:

to me? I know it's an old delete but just thought I try. —

7701:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

7334:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

5729:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

4810:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

4162:..I am not even sure if all of his vandalisms were undone. 4095:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

4054:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3913:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies

2961:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2934:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2402:

Talk:CBS Records#Disambiguation page vs. CBS Records article

7397:. I learned about it after reverting Risker from my phone. 7065:

User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Copyvio_from_editor_with_700_edits

6584:

incivility from long term users is not a problem ANI seems

4385:

mailing list asking them to consider renaming the account.

3485:? This user has uploaded countless copyrighted images from 2464:

Not seen that before. A valuable addition to the language!

436: 397: 7631: 4581:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Comment from My76Strat

7440:

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012

7433:

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2012

5802:

the page if you would restore it to its original state.

5254:

This is to let you know that you have been mentioned

3486: 2015: 1385:

File:Switch off internet in case of political dissent.jpg

1005:

requested account - too similar to your user name or not?

7379:

I understand. I have done the same thing in the past.

4316:

Requesting WP:FORUM statement for Talk:Crimean_Karaites

4131:

WP:AN3#User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:MrX (Result: )

2876:

remarks he already made that had already been replied to

2845:

is usually a bit faster than RFC, maybe they could help.

2790:

I'm not able to post on Penyulap's talk, but please see

2238:

just beat you to it... and I bet he watches this page~!

1842:. I'll thank you to stop badgering me about it as well. 1706:

Oh I'll be around, and I look forward to your next RFA.

1092:

Can you please unlock the page. We have an agreement. --

6646:, myself, and I'm assuming Black60dragon as well), and 5044:

dispute between the two of you there are many forms of

4729:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Stone Bond Technologies

3653:), but it was a lot of talk we've all heard before for 2998:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2173:

Hi, Beeblebrox. Would you be willing to take a look at

5629:. Please look at the Encyclopaedia of Iranica entry: 5141:, any chance of a link and background if not obvious? 5039:

Well the short answer is no, not vandalism. Knowledge

4801:

Knowledge:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#mass_merger_candidates

4050:

Message added 04:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can

3277:

as needed and do not edit war as you have been doing.

2957:

Message added 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can

7690: